Package Details: b43-firmware 6.30.163.46-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/b43-firmware.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: b43-firmware
Description: Firmware for Broadcom B43 wireless networking chips - latest release
Upstream URL: https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/users/Drivers/b43
Keywords: broadcom firmware wireless
Licenses: unknown
Conflicts: b43-firmware-classic
Submitter: Xavion
Maintainer: hayao
Last Packager: Xavion
Votes: 250
Popularity: 0.48
First Submitted: 2008-11-22 01:47 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2015-12-31 21:30 (UTC)

Latest Comments

1 2 3 4 5 6 .. 14 Next › Last »

hayao commented on 2021-06-13 13:15 (UTC)

Now I am maintainer. What should I do? Should I remove the dependency?

JulianXhokaxhiu commented on 2021-06-13 12:55 (UTC)

I forgot I'm actually no more the maintainer, but somehow I still receive notification mails. You'd have to wait for the new one to take action, sorry :)

Scimmia commented on 2021-06-13 12:36 (UTC)

The dep should simply be removed.

JulianXhokaxhiu commented on 2021-06-13 08:51 (UTC)

I'd be totally open to that, if there's a way in the PKGBUILD to target all possible packages providing linux, in the depends section.

Is anyone aware how to achieve that?

df8oe commented on 2021-06-09 11:14 (UTC) (edited on 2021-06-09 11:16 (UTC) by df8oe)

If you run a linux-zen kernel without installed linux you cannot use package (but of course it works). I think dependency should be extended to linux-zen, too

Hi-Angel commented on 2016-11-19 18:42 (UTC)

vicp74 works here, Linux 4.8.7-1, WiFi card is BCM4312.

vicp74 commented on 2016-10-21 04:28 (UTC)

This firmware is not working for me with the kernel 4.8.2, the system doesn't boot and I think it's related to [1]. I tried the b43-firmware-classic but that one also fails. I'm doing some testing, is someone else experiencing this problem? [1] https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=218481

Xavion commented on 2015-12-31 22:05 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed the license name and downgraded the warning to a post-installation message. I'm a bit surprised I didn't do the latter that way the first time to be honest. Anyway, this should bring about a peaceful end to our discussion. You might recall that the last one we had didn't conclude quite so smoothly. You ended up saying: "Don't bother emailing me again. You're now blocked." Am I still blocked, BTW? :-)

Scimmia commented on 2015-12-31 15:44 (UTC)

The license is what gets put on the end package. It is most definitely not GPL. Change it to custom, proprietary, unknown, whatever. Just not GPL. I read the discussion, you're the only one who mentioned a warning in the PKGBUILD. That's not where it belongs. Even if you want it there, making the user acknowledge it is the real problem.

Xavion commented on 2015-12-31 08:46 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the 'conflicts' line; I've just put brackets around it. Fortunately, it was correct in all of my other PKGBUILDs. The license is listed as 'GPL' because that's the way it is for the "b43-fwcutter" package in [core]. Both packages point to the same upstream URL. The license for the tarball isn't listed on the download page, nor is it mentioned in the tarball itself. Regarding the warning message, I know it's not an ideal solution. There's a lengthy discussion about it in the comments below, starting on "2014-02-09" and ending on "2015-05-22" :-). After reading through all of it, let us know if you have a better solution.

1 2 3 4 5 6 .. 14 Next › Last »